**2012 Election Day thread**

[Reddy]

Why would we be giving more weight to the smaller states in the Presidential election? Why should less people have more say?

 

They already get proportionally more weight in the legislature. They already have the senate where even they get equal, regardless of size.

 

I just see no reason why the President should be elected by the states. The President should be the 1 check, that the people get.

 

Why do the people get 0 direct check on the system?

you're all missing something huge. with the electoral college, small states HAVE A SAY! They have electoral votes that MATTER (read: Iowa for instance)

 

In a popular vote, Iowa won't matter. ND won't matter, no small state will matter. So when they don't matter, fewer people will turn out to vote. When that happens, the electorate skews heavily to the urban areas. When THAT happens, Democrats win every time.

[Reddy]

lol. And you try to lecture people about wasting their vote? Come on man.

to be fair, there was literally ONE contested election in my district in NYC. everyone else was a dem running unopposed.

[Y2HH]

Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so.

 

Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that.

 

It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter".

[NorthSideSox72]

But when theres 1 North Dakotan for every 700 New Yorkers, his vote counts even less than if the electoral college, from HIS/HER state, represented them.

 

 

I said this before, and I'll say it again, because it appears it needs to be repeated.

 

I'm not saying a popular vote wouldn't work temporarily...in our current political landscape/population, it MIGHT work just fine.

 

But 50 years from now, the population of these cities are going to quadruple, if not more. At that point, they and they alone will control the vote.

 

First, I think you are wrong on the population trends. The populations of CITIES will be pretty stable, the population of SUBURBS will increase dramatically, and that is a very moderate (overall) segment of the population.

 

Trends change over time, in terms of where the population is - west to east, north to south, city to suburbs, rural to city, etc. That is not a reason to choose a system of this kind, in my view.

 

And again, to your first post... 700 people SHOULD have more voice than one person. But no one person should have more voting power than another, for a single national office.

 

 

[Reddy]

Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so.

 

Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that.

 

It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter".

 

yet again... i agree. (i know that doesn't help your cause... so i apologize. )

Edited November 7, 2012 by Reddy

[Y2HH]

you're all missing something huge. with the electoral college, small states HAVE A SAY! They have electoral votes that MATTER (read: Iowa for instance)

 

In a popular vote, Iowa won't matter. ND won't matter, no small state will matter. So when they don't matter, fewer people will turn out to vote. When that happens, the electorate skews heavily to the urban areas. When THAT happens, Democrats win every time.

 

Because of our limited choice two party system, we ALREADY have very few "battleground" states that "matter" in a national election. I believe that without the EC, we'd have even LESS.

 

In other news, I think the world stopped spinning, or the Zombie Apocalypse has occurred...as we agreed on something.

[NorthSideSox72]

Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so.

 

Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that.

 

It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter".

On the bolded... the EC being removed does no such thing. It empowers all voters, instead of a few. The states still control everything that states control now, and still have the Senate which is the point of that body's structure.

 

And I also do not like the idea of one state being less important, or more important, than another, which is why I favor a popular vote.

 

[southsider2k5]

Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so.

 

Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that.

 

It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter".

 

I agree 100% that it is a very interesting discussion. And it seems to be one that people can have without threatening to move to Canada over.

 

[Y2HH]

On the bolded... the EC being removed does no such thing. It empowers all voters, instead of a few. The states still control everything that states control now, and still have the Senate which is the point of that body's structure.

 

And I also do not like the idea of one state being less important, or more important, than another, which is why I favor a popular vote.

 

I don't think a popular vote fixes that problem, I think it makes a bad problem even worse.

[Reddy]

On the bolded... the EC being removed does no such thing. It empowers all voters, instead of a few. The states still control everything that states control now, and still have the Senate which is the point of that body's structure.

 

And I also do not like the idea of one state being less important, or more important, than another, which is why I favor a popular vote.

simply not true.

 

candidates policies will be shaped to reflect those in the heavily populated areas because THOSE are the areas they need to get on their side. when candidates don't talk about your issues and don't visit your state, you're not going to be motivated to vote.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because of our limited choice two party system, we ALREADY have very few "battleground" states that "matter" in a national election. I believe that without the EC, we'd have even LESS.

 

I would argue a popular vote better empowers 3rd parties to enter the realm, because it doesn't require winning any chunks specifically over others.

 

I agree 100% that it is a very interesting discussion. And it seems to be one that people can have without threatening to move to Canada over.

 

I'm moving to Ireland!

 

Seriously though, I agree, this is the best discussion I think I've seen in the Buster in some time.

 

[Soxbadger]

you're all missing something huge. with the electoral college, small states HAVE A SAY! They have electoral votes that MATTER (read: Iowa for instance)

 

In a popular vote, Iowa won't matter. ND won't matter, no small state will matter. So when they don't matter, fewer people will turn out to vote. When that happens, the electorate skews heavily to the urban areas. When THAT happens, Democrats win every time.

 

This is just a false premise that keeps getting argued but makes no sense.

 

A person in a small state had a more proportional say by popular vote 49% to 49%, than by electoral vote 300 to 200. If more people had turned out in ND, SD, Alabama, etc, Romney may have won the popular vote, but those votes meant 0 to the electoral college.

 

The only way any state has a "say" is if they happen to be a state where there is a split and it happens to be an election where that split may tip the scales. Even then, the small states "say" is definitively less than the big states. Which is why everyone talked about Ohio and Florida, and no one really cared about NH, because there 2 votes only mattered in a very small circumstance, that is completely out of the states control.

 

Unless you think states should pretend to be battle grounds, to get more exposure and get to feel like "I had a say".

 

 

Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so.

 

Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that.

 

It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter".

 

 

North Dakota and New York are vastly different geographically, it has nothing to do with the size of their state or population. Its just like saying that in Illinois people in Chicago dont have much in common with people who live south of Springfield. But that doesnt mean that we should change the vote for Governor to be by county so that we can come up with some "fair" model where people in one county have proportionally more say because their county has less people.

 

Im not saying anyone is less important. I am actually saying that everyone should be EQUALLY important. 1 person, 1 vote.

[NorthSideSox72]

simply not true.

 

candidates policies will be shaped to reflect those in the heavily populated areas because THOSE are the areas they need to get on their side. when candidates don't talk about your issues and don't visit your state, you're not going to be motivated to vote.

Simply not true? By its very nature it has to be true. One vote equals one vote.

 

Candidates' policies are already shaped by the populace, and already shaped by battleground states (auto bailout anyone?). A popular vote puts the entire populace in play, instead of a few, so candidates are forced to deal with what the people actually want.

 

[Y2HH]

I would argue a popular vote better empowers 3rd parties to enter the realm, because it doesn't require winning any chunks specifically over others.

 

 

 

I'm moving to Ireland!

 

Seriously though, I agree, this is the best discussion I think I've seen in the Buster in some time.

 

I don't think we're far off in that we both realize there is a problem with votes mattering. I think the disagreement comes in that you believe a popular vote would fix the problem where I believe it will make an already bad problem even worse.

[Reddy]

I would argue a popular vote better empowers 3rd parties to enter the realm, because it doesn't require winning any chunks specifically over others.

 

urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority!

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think we're far off in that we both realize there is a problem with votes mattering. I think the disagreement comes in that you believe a popular vote would fix the problem where I believe it will make an already bad problem even worse.

 

Fix it entirely? Of course not. Make it better? I think so. Just to be clear, I don't think this would be some sort of fix-all for Presidential politics. In fact I'd say there are a number of much more important issues.

 

urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority!

 

No, because that is not how Presidential campaigns work. What is necessary for them to win is two factors, just as it is now: getting out a base of people who believe in your platform, and winning over the moderate/swing voters.

 

[Y2HH]

urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority!

 

I absolutely see the point they're making...I just think it takes a bad problem and makes it even worse, when their intention is to fix it.

[Soxbadger]

urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority!

 

They already are. Electoral college being removed does not change this.

 

All it changes is that if you live in a state where you are a huge political minority, you can still impact the national race.

[Reddy]

Simply not true? By its very nature it has to be true. One vote equals one vote.

 

Candidates' policies are already shaped by the populace, and already shaped by battleground states (auto bailout anyone?). A popular vote puts the entire populace in play, instead of a few, so candidates are forced to deal with what the people actually want.

 

Ok let me try and be clear about this.

 

if there are 9 million people in NYC alone, and 500,000 people TOTAL in Wyoming, whose issues are going to be MORE important in the minds of the candidates?

[Reddy]

They already are. Electoral college being removed does not change this.

 

All it changes is that if you live in a state where you are a huge political minority, you can still impact the national race.

which battleground state had any major metropolitan ares this time around? NY, CA, IL are never in the discussion. The battlegrounds are smaller states.

[Soxbadger]

Ok let me try and be clear about this.

 

if there are 9 million people in NYC alone, and 500,000 people TOTAL in Wyoming, whose issues are going to be MORE important in the minds of the candidates?

 

It depends, what are my %'s in each state.

 

If its 50/50 in NY no matter what, and its 75/25 in Wyoming, Wyoming is way more important to get closer to 50/50.

[Reddy]

No, because that is not how Presidential campaigns work. What is necessary for them to win is two factors, just as it is now: getting out a base of people who believe in your platform, and winning over the moderate/swing voters.

 

but dont you see how much EASIER that would be for the Dem? the Dem can go to LA, NYC, Chicago, big cities. That's it. And be fine. The GOP candidate has to go EVERYWHERE ELSE in order to "motivate the base" and GOTV

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok let me try and be clear about this.

 

if there are 9 million people in NYC alone, and 500,000 people TOTAL in Wyoming, whose issues are going to be MORE important in the minds of the candidates?

Wrong question. See my post above. And for more evidence, see Iowa and New Hampshire. Very rural areas, of great importance because they have so many swing/moderate voters. Most NYC urbanites are going to vote Dem, most Wyomingers (or whatever they call themselves) will vote GOP, in the current landscape. In reality, if you want to make a good argument for the weakness of the popular vote model, it is that the candidates will focus on suburbanites more than either urban or rural extremes.

 

 

[Reddy]

It depends, what are my %'s in each state.

 

If its 50/50 in NY no matter what, and its 75/25 in Wyoming, Wyoming is way more important to get closer to 50/50.

??? it's... not... 50/50 in NY... it's very heavily liberal.

[Soxbadger]

which battleground state had any major metropolitan ares this time around? NY, CA, IL are never in the discussion. The battlegrounds are smaller states.

 

Florida

 

Ohio

 

Colorado

 

I assume I dont need to name the cities. You can also count Virginia and NC, if youd like.